Arbitrability of Claims Cannot Be Decided at Section 11 Stage

  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Publications
  4. /
  5. Case Snippets
  6. /
  7. Arbitrability of Claims...

In Office for Alternative Architecture v. Ircon Infrastructure And Services Ltd., 2025 INSC 665, the Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside an order of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court order which had excluded certain claims as non-arbitrable in view of “excepted matters” clauses in the contract, while appointing an arbitral tribunal under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court held that under Section 11(6A), inserted by the 2015 amendment, the role of the Court at this stage is confined to examining the existence of an arbitration agreement, “and not other issues”. Relying on the seven-judge ruling in In Re: Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements and the Indian Stamp Act (2023) and the three-judge bench in SBI General Insurance Co. v. Krish Spinning (2024), the Court clarified that questions of arbitrability, including whether claims fall within excepted categories, must be left to the arbitral tribunal. The impugned order was therefore set aside to the extent it excluded claims, and the appeal was allowed.

Tags:

Let us help you!

If you need any help, please feel free to contact us. We will get back to you within one business day. Alternatively, if you're in a hurry, you can call us now

+91 9052538538
info@karavadi.in

Recent Case Snippets

Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd. v. General Manager & Anr.

Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd. v. General Manager & Anr.1 (On Interpretation of ‘Sufficient Cause’ U/S. 29A of the Arbitration Act) - Yogitha Jammula2 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in… Read more »

High Court Can’t Become Guardian of Limitation Without Pleadings : Limitation Must Be Pleaded, Not Presumed

In Jai Ram Vs. Som Prakash & Anr. etc., 2025 INSC 227, the Hon’ble Supreme Court chided the High Court for setting-aside a reasoned order of the District… Read more »

S.74 Contract Act | Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Permissible If It’s Not Excessive Amounting To Penalty : SC

In Godrej Projects Development Limited v. Anil Karlekar & Ors (Civil Appeal No. 3334/2023), the Supreme Court ruled that forfeiture of earnest money in property transactions is valid… Read more »

Disclaimer

The Rules and Regulations set forth by the Bar Council of India under Advocates Act, 1961 prohibit Advocates or Law Firms from advertising or soliciting work through public domain communications. This website is intended solely to provide information. Karavadi & Associates (“K&A”) does not aim to advertise or solicit clients through this platform. K & A disclaim any responsibility for decisions made by readers/visitors based solely on the content of this website.

By clicking 'AGREE,' readers/visitors agree and acknowledge that the information provided herein (a) does not constitute advertising or solicitation, and (b) is intended solely for their understanding of K & A services. By continuing to use this site, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as outlined in our Cookie Policy.